Climategate

1134135137139140153

Comments

  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Apparently you fail to understand that open means open and not FT declared he was right and that all JG's stuff was wrong and thus discussion is now over.



    You haven't been reading what's here, have you? Besides your mischaracterization what's happen, you failed to mentioned that I have asked jg to discuss the issues. jg refuses to respond and support what he/she has posted. I thought this was a discussion. No where in this thread have I declared that I'm right, jg's wrong and thus the discussion is over---nice try tm......point fingers and obfuscate the issues.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Saying he's a liar aka disingenuous just because you disagree with him isn't open discussion. It is an attack.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    This is not a silly game. I have refuted what you have posted and only challenged you to do the same or at least defend what you post. If you can't support your postings, or if you don't believe in them you are being disingenuous to the readers and commenters of this thread. This is a forum after all.





    I stand by that statement, however you mischaracterize my usage of the word.



    dis·in·gen·u·ous*

    Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating....http://www.answers.com/topic/disingenuous



    adjective

    not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does....(http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disingenuous_

    ?adjective

    lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity



    as opposed to lie

    a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.



    jg did not lie since jg was not the one who made the statements in the links. jg is not being sincere, not being candid, or not being ingenuous by continuing to refuse to discuss or support his/her position.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Open means put it all out there and let the people decide for themselves.



    Oh, then what you and jg in other post are wrong when it was said



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Also it is a DISCUSSION forum. Add something from you buddy.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Yes but as you've noticed, I put some captions I've written with the pictures. Thus there is no need for the reader to infer my intent and then have me get off on telling them they inferred wrong and thus suck.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Help me.

    It is not just an empty post full of links, pictures, and quotes with no conclusions.

    I've not encountered this before. I'm not sure how to proceed.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    I knew the moment I posted that comic with no comment or caption that FT would make a big deal out of it.



    and others are wrong to insist that just posting links as jg has done without comments or defending them when challenged is OK?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    This is not your blog. This is a forum. If you want a climate denier aggregator, start your own climate denier aggregator and stop bumping this thread with horsehit from climate denial blogs. Fine Tunes debunks it and you ignore him again and again, so you don't want to discuss, you just want to post, so you should start a blog. That's what you should do.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    You seem to find the concept of a forum problematic.

    If you look on the previous page, you will see that you post twelve links in separate posts to climate denial blogs.

    Fine Tunes debunks several.

    And you ignore him. I think you spend two or three posts on him, and only one is longer than a single line.



    So what you really should do is start a blog. Start a climate denial blog, and turn the comments off. You?re not interested in discussion. We can tell this because you don?t defend any of your posts.



    Start a blog. Turn the comments off. A forum has a ?reply? button so people can engage in debate with you. If you?re not interested in what people have to say, I think a blog would be better for you, and you could stop bumping this thread.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Or maybe I can just keep posting links to relevant information in this thread and you can ignore them.





    jg's comments after a dissertation on page 63 # 2510.http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...14#post1741914

    At least BR made a comment about the post, jg ignored it totally.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Nice.



    You know, you could just say you agree with it, BR.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Excellent, thorough, detailed, scientifically rigorous response Finetunes. Expect it to be promptly dismissed by Jazzyjazz.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Jazzy, here you go again demonstrating that you really don't understand climate science one bit. Worthless. Utterly worthless.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    Oh look jazzguru has just posted a link to a climate denier blog!



    Start a blog. You want a blog. This is not your blog. Start a blog.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    'Biodiversity': the new Big Lie





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    That's the huge fallacy that we have in this nation. You can't just bring on a dissenting opinion and automatically give it the same weight because it's from the "other side"--not when that dissenting opinion comes from one that lacks knowledge, ethics, credibility, or all of the above. This whole notion that everyone's opinion somehow has merit is utter bullshit.



    You continue to post links from people that have been proven time and time again to distort the actual picture of what's going. They use faulty math, logic, and science to advance an agenda. Their fallacious reasoning has been debunked numerous times, yet because they are from the "other side," you somehow decide that they still must receive equal weight. I'm sorry, they don't.



    So it's alright not to insist that jg defend his/her position or point of view even when several members have asked for an explanation? If what you expect is post links fine with me, but lets be fair about your criticisms.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    It's quite rude to demand of others what you don't demand of yourself.



    I am willing to support what I've posted, just ask that jg do the same.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    JG fully supports his views. He links to information. He cites sources. He provides quotes, graphs, you name it.

    The definition of support with regard to an argument is not that which manages to convince you, especially convince you against your will, that you are wrong.



    That's the main issue that I have raised with jg. jg just post links and does not comment on them, nor does jg defend or support the articles he/she posts. I gather that jg, when he/she post links, that it supports what jg believes to be true and it supports his/her position. When I have challenged jg's post, jg's only response is to post another link to an article that has nothing to do with the issue I have raised.



    I guess you agree with this premise that you need only to post links without comments:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Open means put it all out there and let the people decide for themselves.



    but as I see below, you now agree that you should at least have a paragraph summary. This is fine, and I have made an effort to shorten the length of quotes from the articles I present, I only ask that jg do likewise and support what he/she has posted when it is questioned/challenged.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    First global climate prediction is a proto-science at best. Anyone who claims they have THE truth or THE answer is akin to a religious fanatic because these models, and that is what all the claims are based on are deeply flawed, subject to frequent revision and often rely on proxies that may or may not be accurate for past history or future predictions......



    I think that the characterization of ?global climate prediction? is an over simplification of Global Warming.

    def protoscience: a set of beliefs or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method but which are otherwise consistent with existing science; a new science working to establish itself as legitimate science.



    Global Warming is occurring. There is more evidence to support this and only the impacts of AGW are not fully accessed or understood. Modeling is getting better?not perfect as you know there are many variables, however the fact is as my previously posted links support Global Warming is a fact.



    Quote:

    Climate Models: How Reliable are Their Predictions?



    Although the specific predictions of climate change are derived from models, the reasons for expecting significant global warming in the near future comes from a much deeper foundation that includes laboratory and field experiments, well-established knowledge of atmospheric behavior, and measurements that include worldwide monitoring of atmospheric conditions....



    Predictions of future climate are imperfect because they are limited by significant uncertainties that stem from: (1) the natural variability of climate; (2) our inability to predict accurately future greenhouse-gas and aerosol emissions; (3) the potential for unpredicted or unrecognized factors, such as volcanic eruptions or new or unknown human influences, to perturb atmospheric conditions; and (4) our as-yet incomplete understanding of the total climate system. The reliability of climate-model predictions depends directly upon each of these.



    Virtually Certain:

    (1) The temperature of the stratosphere--an upper region of the atmosphere that extends from about ten to fifty kilometers (six to thirty miles) above the surface of the Earth--will be significantly cooled.



    Very Probable:

    (2) The surface temperature of the Earth will continue to rise through at least the middle of the 21st century.

    (3) Higher surface temperatures will cause an increase in the average precipitation over the globe.

    (4) The amount of sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere will be diminished.

    (5) Land areas in the Arctic should experience amplified wintertime warming .

    (6) Global warming will cause sea level to rise.

    (7) The climatic effect of any changes expected in the amount of energy radiated from the Sun in the course of the next fifty years is much smaller than that from increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.



    Long answer in two parts.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    FT, you should be old and wise enough to understand these points by now. When you go into a court both sides present a case. Both sides provide a narrative of what happened, present evidence, ask questions they hope to get answers they like to, etc. In the end a judge decides. Well in these open forums, the readers decide for themselves. About 5% of them register and post, but fully 90%+ percent of them are guests aka lurkers. You don't have to convince JG. You can convince them. If someone feels passionate about what you've shared, they'll register and add to the discussion. If not, then harassing and spamming isn't going to convince them and it is going to turn many people off to what you have to say.



    If this were real life, if it were your work place, a coffee house, a university class, would you be allowed to talk over everyone and stick your papers that you believe prove your point in their faces repeatedly? It wouldn't fly. A monologue isn't a dialog. Likewise spewing the same dozen points ore stridently each time (bigger fonts, more colors, more smilies and pics) won't change the nature of what you are doing. Stop harassing people. Present information and move on.



    I'm of the view that links (JG and FT) alone don't compel someone to read. Likewise five pages doesn't compel someone to read. Pick an interesting paragraph to quote and see if you can hook and reel someone in to read your information. Sharing some small bit about why you think it is important to understand helps too.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    tm, you fail to see that most of what jg has posted has been refuted as being wrong. jg has failed to support any of his/her postings/arguements. Instead of standing for what is he/she has posted, jg goes back to the same denier's blogger sites and finds more crap.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    As others have pointed out in other threads, you don't answer questions. How am I making ridiculous demands on jg? Only asking that jg to support his/her argument.

    Who has come to the thread to confront me----err who's the troll---tm of course!!!





    I had to review what you referred to as my quote. I have included what is actually two quotes. The first does list previous post where I have refuted jg's linked articles and ask that jg respond to defend or support the linked articles.



    Your court analogy is a good one. Since jg is the originator of this thread, lets call him/her the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the burden of proof that the case has merit and is sustainable to a favorable disposition to plaintiff. The plaintiff must convince the jury that he's right and should prevail. jg's case is either that AGW is wrong, or that the evidence/science supporting it is flawed. Most of the evidence that jg presented to support his/her case has been refuted. It is up to jg to either support his/her evidence?to convince the judge the facts/evidence is not refutable?that jg has more to support the evidence. You challenge defendants case by showing that what they have presented either as an argument against your evidence and facts are sh!t and/or what they present as fact and as evidence is sh!t.



    As I pointed to jg, the sites that he/she keeps going to are blogger denier sites. If the articles that they continually post are refutable by being misinterpretation of or misquoting the author's conclusions then the site itself as a source becomes questionable. Move on and find a better site.



    Rather than argue against what the ?defendant? has presented and argued, jg goes and links to more articles which have nothing to do with the issues that have raised. You have to convince the jury of your case. You have to convince the judge that your facts are sound.



    jg has presented a poor case and based upon the facts, evidence and science presented by the defendant, defendant should prevail----oh....sorry...got carried away.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I've stated what I think is most persuasive. Yet I'll take a post full of ten links right now over what you usually do and at least you aren't harassing and stalking anyone.



    I say have at it!



    Just pointing out that posting links and not commenting on them or supporting them when challenged makes little sense. If you follow most of my other post in this thread, I do comment. I will as per your suggestion, shorten my quotes.



    As I have commented in the above, jg needs to step up and support the links je/she post when it questioned.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    As I have commented in the above, jg needs to step up and support the links je/she post when it questioned.



    No, I do not.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Environmentalists 'exaggerated' threat to tropical rainforests from global warming



    Quote:

    he threat to tropical rainforests from climate change may have been exaggerated by environmentalists, according to a new study.



    Researchers have shown that the world's tropical forests thrived in the far distant past when temperatures were 3 to 5C warmer than today.



    They believe that a wetter, warmer future may actually boost plants and animals living the tropics.



    The findings, published in the respected journal Science, come from a study of pollen trapped in rocks during a natural period of global warming 56.3million years ago.



    A dissenting opinion at the end of the article claims that if the temperature increases lead to droughts, it could could do more harm than good. But read carefully. There are a lot of "if"s.



    My conclusion: we do not know for certain what effect increased temperatures will have on rain forests in the future.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    IPCC Climate Science Is Fundamentally Wrong: Carbon Footprint is All Wet



    Quote:

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) science deliberately kept public focus on warmer temperatures and blamed it all on radiative forcing due to CO2. They virtually ignore water in all its forms, partly because terms of reference directed them to only human causes and because any consideration of the role of water destroys the CO2 hypothesis.



    Water explains many elements of weather as reflected in the response of plants and animals, but they even perverted that evidence.



    Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ deliberately rewrote history to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) because it contradicted the false claim the world was the warmest ever. It was corruption of science to support a political agenda. Lost in the furor was the false assumption that tree growth was only about temperature. In reality, the most important growth factor is precipitation and available moisture. If Mann and others involved with the climate science debacle knew anything about climate, or were doing honest science, they would know this.



  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member


    Global temperature to rise 3.5 degrees C. by 2035: International Energy Agency

    By Stephen Kurczy,*Staff writer / November 11, 2010



    Quote:

    Unless governments cut subsidies for fossil fuels and adopt new policies to support renewable energy sources, the Copenhagen Accord to hold global warming to less than a 2-degree increase will not be reached.



    Global temperatures are projected rise 3.5 degrees C. over the next 25 years, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday, meaning that governments worldwide will have failed in their pledge to hold global temperature at a 2-degree increase.



  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    EPA rules that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health



    Quote:

    The EPA's announcement Monday advances two goals: It gives the US more clout at the Copenhagen UN global warming summit, and it nudges Congress to pass new greenhouse gas regulations.....



    The EPA move is likely to give the US negotiating clout at the summit overseas. But it is also seen as the ?stick? part of a carrot-and-stick approach that many observers say the Obama administration is using to nudge Congress toward new climate-energy legislation. If the Senate ? where the bill is bogged down ? won?t act, then it?s clear the EPA now stands ready to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, analysts say.



    ?This administration will not ignore the science or the law any longer,? Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator said at a press conference in Washington this afternoon. ?Nor will we avoid the responsibility we owe to our children and grandchildren.?.......



    The EPA move follows a 2007 US Supreme Court decision that greenhouse gases may indeed be regulated under the Clear Air Act?s definition of a pollutant. The Bush Administration refused to issue a finding that greenhouse gases were such a pollutant ? even though its EPA scientists had reached that conclusion. Those findings were released in April......



  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    No, I do not.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Just pointing out that posting links and not commenting on them or supporting them when challenged makes little sense. If you follow most of my other post in this thread, I do comment. I will as per your suggestion, shorten my quotes.



    As I have commented in the above, jg needs to step up and support the links he/she post when it questioned.





    No you don't, we're all adults here. If you can't support your arguments, that's ok, you don't have to believe anything you post here in Climategate.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    No you don't, we're all adults here. If you can't support your arguments, that's ok, you don't have to believe anything you post here in Climategate.



    You can believe whatever you want, of course.



    You can believe that because I don't ask "how high" when you say "jump" that I can't defend my positions.



    You can believe that greenhouse gases are pollutants.



    You can believe that every time we fart, a tree dies. (I'm not saying you do, I'm saying you can.)



    I don't care, as long as you afford me the same courtesy to believe what I will.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    You can believe whatever you want, of course.



    You can believe that because I don't ask "how high" when you say "jump" that I can't defend my positions.



    You can believe that greenhouse gases are pollutants.



    You can believe that every time we fart, a tree dies. (I'm not saying you do, I'm saying you can.)



    I don't care, as long as you afford me the same courtesy to believe what I will.



    Never asked you how high. Never smoked mj (not Mumbo Jumbo) so I didn't need to deny never having inhaled. It would be nice if you support your position though some dialogue. I noticed that you do make comments in other threads---why not this one---you started it.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Never asked you how high. Never smoked mj (not Mumbo Jumbo) so I didn't need to deny never having inhaled. It would be nice if you support your position though some dialogue. I noticed that you do make comments in other threads---why not this one---you started it.



    I invite you to read through the previous pages in the thread. All of them.
  • brbr Posts: 8,252member
    Jazz falls into Heinlein's Democratic Fallacy. He believes his opinion is as good as anyone else's.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,200member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    You haven't been reading what's here, have you? Besides your mischaracterization what's happen, you failed to mentioned that I have asked jg to discuss the issues. jg refuses to respond and support what he/she has posted. I thought this was a discussion. No where in this thread have I declared that I'm right, jg's wrong and thus the discussion is over---nice try tm......point fingers and obfuscate the issues.



    I stand by that statement, however you mischaracterize my usage of the word.



    dis·in·gen·u·ous*

    Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating....http://www.answers.com/topic/disingenuous



    adjective

    not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does....(http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disingenuous_

    ?adjective

    lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity



    as opposed to lie

    a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.



    jg did not lie since jg was not the one who made the statements in the links. jg is not being sincere, not being candid, or not being ingenuous by continuing to refuse to discuss or support his/her position.



    You have no way of measuring JG's sincerity, candidness or any other attribute. You're relatively new here FT and as I'm sure you've noticed, some of us have quite a long history with each other. You are engaging in what I have mentally shorthanded as the intent game. It is another another form of using conformity instead of reasoning to justify a position.



    You do realize that a person could read every link, know everything you know and still come to a different conclusion right? It doesn't have to be a question of ignorance or disingeniousness. You assume these points.



    Quote:

    Oh, then what you and jg in other post are wrong when it was said

    and others are wrong to insist that just posting links as jg has done without comments or defending them when challenged is OK?



    I still stand by those points. They are the point that present better reasoning. However JG is dealing with several parties in the thread that really don't address the discussion. If you are spending your time questioning the intent, the sources, etc of someone then that isn't about the discussion. There are specific logical fallacies assigned to them called ad-homs and poisoning the well among others. I'm sure the others know why they are obscuring the true discussion, but with you I'm not so sure.



    Quote:

    So it's alright not to insist that jg defend his/her position or point of view even when several members have asked for an explanation? If what you expect is post links fine with me, but lets be fair about your criticisms.



    I am willing to support what I've posted, just ask that jg do the same.



    JG has supported it. If he doesn't support it your satisfaction that is not within your power to control nor is it your right to harass him about it.



    Do you think that you have supported your position to the satisfaction of climate skeptics? Of course not. However that doesn't give them the right to mistreat you does it? Can they begin questioning your intentions, or declare your actions to be non-action simply because they haven't reached the same outcome as you?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    That's the main issue that I have raised with jg. jg just post links and does not comment on them, nor does jg defend or support the articles he/she posts. I gather that jg, when he/she post links, that it supports what jg believes to be true and it supports his/her position. When I have challenged jg's post, jg's only response is to post another link to an article that has nothing to do with the issue I have raised.



    I guess you agree with this premise that you need only to post links without comments:



    but as I see below, you now agree that you should at least have a paragraph summary. This is fine, and I have made an effort to shorten the length of quotes from the articles I present, I only ask that jg do likewise and support what he/she has posted when it is questioned/challenged.



    Whether I agree with it or not, I'm simply noting what tends to persuade versus what doesn't. I have no power to control such things and merely suggest. If you took all those links and posted the full text from each of them, I couldn't change that. If you posted nothing but the link, I can't change that. I can complain for a short time and request but after that I should leave it alone. Three or four verbal jabs with a short stick is a request or recommendation. Beyond that it is harassment. A long time ago some liberal poster on declared they didn't want to read my posts, but claimed my misleading thread titles FORCED them to go in and read the thread.



    I mean beyond the absurdity of that claim, think about that for a second. Their interest drove them to read the thread and they claimed I basically forced their hand. They claimed they were basically reading it against their will due to their piqued interest. To honor that request about 95% of the time, I name the thread the title of the article that prompts me to start the thread. If they have a complaint now they can take it up with the editor of the respective newspaper, or magazine but I've honored the request the best I can. If they can't tolerate it beyond that then the forum software has an ignore feature.



    Quote:

    I think that the characterization of ?global climate prediction? is an over simplification of Global Warming.

    def protoscience: a set of beliefs or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method but which are otherwise consistent with existing science; a new science working to establish itself as legitimate science.



    Global Warming is occurring. There is more evidence to support this and only the impacts of AGW are not fully accessed or understood. Modeling is getting better?not perfect as you know there are many variables, however the fact is as my previously posted links support Global Warming is a fact.



    A future event can never be a fact until it becomes the present. The question about warming isn't just if it is occuring. Radical climate variation IS THE NORM. I go and visit Arizona and large sections of it were once an ocean floor. There are dormant volcanos all over the state. Clearly that is not the case now. We can find tropical fossils in northern land areas. We can find where ice and glaciers extended down much further than they do now and all of these things took place regardless of man.



    The point is that man must be proven as the source and the change must not be assumed to be bad. Those things are not at all facts. In this area it is pure protoscience. Even many of the assumptions are logical leaps.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    I had to review what you referred to as my quote. I have included what is actually two quotes. The first does list previous post where I have refuted jg's linked articles and ask that jg respond to defend or support the linked articles.



    Your court analogy is a good one. Since jg is the originator of this thread, lets call him/her the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the burden of proof that the case has merit and is sustainable to a favorable disposition to plaintiff. The plaintiff must convince the jury that he's right and should prevail. jg's case is either that AGW is wrong, or that the evidence/science supporting it is flawed. Most of the evidence that jg presented to support his/her case has been refuted. It is up to jg to either support his/her evidence?to convince the judge the facts/evidence is not refutable?that jg has more to support the evidence. You challenge defendants case by showing that what they have presented either as an argument against your evidence and facts are sh!t and/or what they present as fact and as evidence is sh!t.



    However if you are a defendant and you think the prosecution's evidence is shit that doesn't mean you can harass the prosecution. You present your case and let the judge decide. The judge in this case is your fellow posters and readers. If you harass the prosecution, the judge will find you in contempt of court. Several parties around here have been found in contempt aka banned either temporarily or perm because they couldn't understand this.



    Also I'd have to point out that since man altering the climate of the earth is considered a new state different from the default state of the climate altering on it's own, that within the confines of logical arguments the assertion and related proof is always on those declaring climate change. The default position of the skeptic is to believe the earth is undergoing the same massive and varied changes it has undergone for millions of years. The new assertion is the one that must be proven.



    Quote:

    As I pointed to jg, the sites that he/she keeps going to are blogger denier sites. If the articles that they continually post are refutable by being misinterpretation of or misquoting the author's conclusions then the site itself as a source becomes questionable. Move on and find a better site.



    There is a a couple logical fallacies. One is poisoning the well and another is ad-hom circumstancial. The source has no bearing on the validity of the information. The information is either valid or it isn't. Your claim of refuation obviously is not shared by JG or else he wouldn't keep using it in an attempt to persuade. You've got no authority on these matters (nor do I by the way.) You say it refuted it. He says it didn't. It still amounts to the playground version of BECAUSE I SAID SO.



    The only one who truly decides is the public.



    Quote:

    Rather than argue against what the ?defendant? has presented and argued, jg goes and links to more articles which have nothing to do with the issues that have raised. You have to convince the jury of your case. You have to convince the judge that your facts are sound.



    Yes and if someone isn't making their cause though that doesn't mean you get to harass them.



    Quote:

    jg has presented a poor case and based upon the facts, evidence and science presented by the defendant, defendant should prevail----oh....sorry...got carried away.



    You still have to leave it up to those parties. You can't harass him because of what you think about the presentation of his case.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Just pointing out that posting links and not commenting on them or supporting them when challenged makes little sense. If you follow most of my other post in this thread, I do comment. I will as per your suggestion, shorten my quotes.



    As I have commented in the above, jg needs to step up and support the links je/she post when it questioned.



    I'm sure he will feel compelled if a discussion is occurring. However logical fallacies aren't discussions. Someone's links aren't wrong because of the source. They aren't wrong because of consensus. They aren't wrong because another link attempts to refute it. They are just objectively right or wrong. Since everyone is speculating on future events, no one really knows for sure and even on the side with which you agree the models are being revised early and often and the cause of some of those revisions is information found by skeptics. If a case becomes strong enough to win over a skeptic, then it really is a good case. Badgering isn't convincing though.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:

    Oh, then what you and jg in other post are wrong when it was said

    and others are wrong to insist that just posting links as jg has done without comments or defending them when challenged is OK?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I still stand by those points. They are the point that present better reasoning. However JG is dealing with several parties in the thread that really don't address the discussion. If you are spending your time questioning the intent, the sources, etc of someone then that isn't about the discussion. There are specific logical fallacies assigned to them called ad-homs and poisoning the well among others. I'm sure the others know why they are obscuring the true discussion, but with you I'm not so sure.



    I have, in other threads just posted links and taken quotes from them without making comments. I have contributed to Misc. News thread, so posting a link with a quote or summary is OK. I have done this in sego's Islamic thread and the New York Mosque, and the Genitals threads, however, when questions arose, I made the effort to address the question and dialogued. I think that I had some exchanges with you in the Freedom of Speech thread.



    However here, in the last five pages 65-69, jg has not answered any of the questions I have asked. In these pages, about 80-90% of the postings are mine or jg's. BR, Worm, MJ1970 and e### do get into solar panels on pages 65-66, but jg does not engage?neither do I since this was off topic.



    The time where jg and I get into dialogue is page 63, and it continues to page 64. Things got heated between MJ and jg on page 63.



    So bottom line here is that jg should have the time to answer the questions. For the last five pages, jg had only me to dialoge with, but rather than dialogue, jg posted more links that did not address the pending questions or issues.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    JG has supported it. If he doesn't support it your satisfaction that is not within your power to control nor is it your right to harass him about it.

    Do you think that you have supported your position to the satisfaction of climate skeptics? Of course not. However that doesn't give them the right to mistreat you does it? Can they begin questioning your intentions, or declare your actions to be non-action simply because they haven't reached the same outcome as you?



    jg has not supported or answered the questions or issues. That's the issue. Not harassing, just asking that jg to comment to defend what he/she has posted and answer the question. You and I have dialogued more since yesterday that jg has dialogued with me since 10/25.



    Whether I have supported my position to jg's satisfaction is an unknown since jg has refused to comment.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    However if you are a defendant and you think the prosecution's evidence is shit that doesn't mean you can harass the prosecution. You present your case and let the judge decide. The judge in this case is your fellow posters and readers. If you harass the prosecution, the judge will find you in contempt of court. Several parties around here have been found in contempt aka banned either temporarily or perm because they couldn't understand this.

    Also I'd have to point out that since man altering the climate of the earth is considered a new state different from the default state of the climate altering on it's own, that within the confines of logical arguments the assertion and related proof is always on those declaring climate change. The default position of the skeptic is to believe the earth is undergoing the same massive and varied changes it has undergone for millions of years. The new assertion is the one that must be proven.



    I should have mentioned that this is a civil case. Criminal cases are too messy to deal with and the burden of proof the people must achieve is ?beyond a reasonable doubt.? Civil trials are less burdensome. The burden is ?by the preponderance of the evidence.?--you need to only convince a majority of the jurors not all of them as in Crim. Ct.



    To carry your court analogy a little further, there are procedures where both parties to the suit may enquire about and demand production of documents or evidence. You can demand that the other party admit or deny certain facts. There is communication between the parties' attorneys and if necessary there are motions---where one party ask to other party show me what you got or the case is blown away. So when asked, as in Summary Judgment, you put your case forward before trial. If defendant prevails, the issues resolved in Summary Judgment go away and can't be used at trial. If this leaves the plaintiff without a case, the case is summarily dismissed.



    Case in point, I have asked jg to support his/her position. jg post a link stating that 1970 was the coolest year since you know when and you should infer from that AGW is flawed and a myth. I post several links showing that the temperatures over the last two or three decades have been steadily raising and I can't remember the exact years but lets say 2005 and 2009 were the warmest years globally over the last 100 or so years. I have no control over what jg chooses to do. If jg does not want to answer or refuses to support his/her case I'm done with it and do not want to burn more of my time. This thread was dying until I started to challenge some of jg's postings. Maybe it's time that I leave it to jg and let jg post to his/her hearts content and let this thread go off into the abyss of beyond page 3.



    I will leave the rest of your question unanswered since I have burnt more time on this thread that it is worth, especially when the originator doesn't have the cojones to defend his/her beliefs. Judgment for defendant, plaintiff has failed to put on a case.



  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member




    You disagree with me, FT. I get that. You know what? It's okay to disagree without making it personal.



    Saying that I don't have the "cojones" to defend my beliefs is childish, rude, and condescending.



    You feel I have not addressed your questions, or not addressed them to your satisfaction. I'm sorry you feel that way. But asking the questions over and over and over just because you don't like my answers or feel you didn't get answers is obviously not working. Attacking me personally when you don't get what you want makes me even more inclined to ignore you.



    I'll state again (as I have stated many, many times before):



    I believe climate change is real. I have never said that the earth's climate does not change.



    I believe the true extent of the impact of human activity on climate change has yet to be determined, and that we certainly cannot accurately predict future climate or weather based on what we currently know.



    I believe in doing all we can within our means to conserve resources and protect the environment.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member


    COULDN'T RESIST ONE LAST COMMENT



    Less of the above and more science

    Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says







    THE HOTTEST YEAR



    Quote:

    I like to think the worst is over, but it?s coming up to the first anniversary and it?s some- thing I?ll always remember at this time of year, when the nights close in. This is the time it happened.?.....



    Can Jones offer any advice to research scientists who wake up one morning to find themselves the centre of a worldwide scientific scandal? "I don't know that I can. The thing to point out is that whatever you try to do, the goalposts keep moving." As soon as he responded to one criticism, another popped up.



    Jones has steadily begun to piece together his professional as well as his personal life. The discovery of the sudden Atlantic cooling was recently published in Nature3 and he has started to attend conferences again. He agrees to pose for photographs outside the CRU building, gazing at the blue sky. Then he shuffles back into the relative calm of his unit: one scientist who now realizes his castle walls cannot completely shield him from the outside world.



    'Climategate' scientist speaks out
  • brbr Posts: 8,252member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    I'll state again (as I have stated many, many times before):



    I believe climate change is real. I have never said that the earth's climate does not change.



    I believe the true extent of the impact of human activity on climate change has yet to be determined, and that we certainly cannot accurately predict future climate or weather based on what we currently know.



    I believe in doing all we can within our means to conserve resources and protect the environment.



    And again, your actions in this thread run counter to your goals. Promoting deniers with clear profit-motivated agendas does NOTHING but further harm the environment. Put your fucking time and effort into making the world a better place--not promoting ignorance.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    BR, we are all ignorant. We're just ignorant about different things.
Sign In or Register to comment.